Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl

draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl - Write Up

Previous state: WG Document
Current state:  Last Call Finished on 04-19
--------------------------------------

1. Summary

* Responsible Area Director: John Scudder
* Document Shepherd: Ines Robles mariainesrobles@googlemail.com

 This document specifies a reactive P2P route discovery mechanism for both
 hop-by-hop routing and source routing: Ad Hoc On-demand Distance Vector
 Routing (AODV) based RPL protocol.  Paired Instances are used to construct
 directional paths, in case some of the links between source and target node
 are asymmetric.

The Intended RFC status is Standards Track.

2. Review and Consensus

This document was reviewed in roll working group. It was submitted to the IESG
and returned to the working group for further development on April 2022 The
issues were addressed in several iterations of the document. During the last
versions including the correction of the reviews, members were silent, no
rejection gotten, currently the document is in version 18.

3. Intellectual Property

Email sent to the Authors asking confirmation: All authors confirmed on May
2023 for version 17.

4. Other points

Checklist for draft 18

Does the shepherd stand behind the document and think the document is ready for
publication? Yes.

Is the correct RFC type indicated in the title page header?  Yes.

Is the abstract both brief and sufficient, and does it stand alone as a brief
summary? Yes

Is the intent of the document accurately and adequately explained in the
introduction? Yes.

Have all required formal reviews (MIB Doctor, Media Type, URI, etc.) been
requested and/or completed? Not apply.

Has the shepherd performed automated checks -- idnits (see ​
http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist), checks of
BNF rules, XML code and schemas, MIB definitions, and so on -- and determined
that the document passes the tests? (In general, nits should be fixed before
the document is sent to the IESG. If there are reasons that some remain (false
positives, perhaps, or abnormal things that are necessary for this particular
document), explain them.)

Nits results:

(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

From
https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-18.txt
No errors, no nits.

Has each author stated that their direct, personal knowledge of any IPR related
to this document has already been disclosed, in conformance with BCPs 78 and
79? Yes

Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or
informative, and does the shepherd agree with how they have been classified?
Yes.

Are all normative references made to documents that are ready for advancement
and are otherwise in a clear state? Yes.

If publication of this document changes the status of any existing RFCs, are
those RFCs listed on the title page header, and are the changes listed in the
abstract and discussed (explained, not just mentioned) in the introduction? 
Not apply.

If this is a "bis" document, have all of the errata been considered? Not apply.

IANA Considerations:
Are the IANA Considerations clear and complete? Yes.

Are all protocol extensions that the document makes associated with the
appropriate reservations in IANA registries? Yes.

Are all IANA registries referred to by their exact names (check them in ​
http://www.iana.org/protocols/ to be sure)? Yes.

For any new registries that this document creates, has the working group
actively chosen the allocation procedures and policies and discussed the
alternatives? Not apply.

Have reasonable registry names been chosen (that will not be confused with
those of other registries),? and have the initial contents and valid value
ranges been clearly specified? Yes.

Issues raised by document shepherd were fixed in version 07.

Version 17 and 18 addressed comments mainly made by routing directorate
reviewer and other minors corrections.

Thank you for this document,

Ines.
Back